ISLAMABAD: A legal requirement for consultation between the prime minister and the leader of opposition did not vest dictatorial or veto power on the latter to shoot down appointments, a government counsel said in the Supreme Court on Thursday.
The court was hearing challenges to the appointment of Justice (retd) Syed Deedar Hussain Shah as the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).The counsel, Mr Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, said: “Consultation under Section 6(bi) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, is not a legal or constitutional but a political process and does not give the opposition leader the dictatorial authority or primacy to veto such appointments.”
A bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed and Justice Asif Saeed Khosa is hearing petitions moved by Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and citizen Shahid Orakzai.
Chaudhry Nisar has contended that the spirit of Section 6 of the NAO has not been adhered to because the appointment has been made despite his opposition on the grounds that Justice (retd) Deedar Shah is known for his long association with the PPP, his participation in party politics and twice serving as a member of the Sindh Assembly.
Mr Pirzada said that although consultation between the leaders of the house and the opposition over such appointments had legal backing, the substance was always political.
This was what democracy was all about, he said, adding that the case was not like the appointment of people such as Saifur Rehman of the PML-N as chairman of the Ehtesab Bureau to hound everybody.
He said the petitions before the Supreme Court were not maintainable, the Sindh High Court (SHC) had taken up two similar pleas and issued an exhaustive order.
He said the apex court never intervened in a matter unless there was a clog on the enforcement of fundamental rights. Besides, the right of the high court could never be abridged.
Justice Khosa said there was a need to devise some parameters as the Indian Supreme Court formulated rules after the 2002 Union of India versus Bhagwati Prasad case categorising which cases should come to the apex court.
Mr Pirzada said that in the Wage Board Award case the Supreme Court had asked the petitioners to approach the high court because the matter did not involve enforcement of fundamental rights.
Dr Khalid Ranjha, representing the NAB chairman, said the purpose of the consultation was achieved the moment the leader of the house spoke to the opposition leader. He said there was no mechanism and it was nowhere written that the leader of the house would persuade the opposition leader or go to the latter's home. The job of the leader of the house was done the moment he spoke with the leader of the opposition and it did not matter if the latter agreed or not, he said.
He said the appointment was made after the prime minister had rendered his advice to the president under Article 48(4) of the Constitution and whatever advice had been tendered could not be inquired into by any court or tribunal.
Justice Jillani said the court's only concern was whether the advice had been given and it was not interested in knowing the contents of the advice.
Dr Ranjha also requested the court to wait for the decision of the SHC which would hear the matter on Feb 21.
On the request of Mr Pirzada, the court decided to resume the hearing on Tuesday.
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.